The labial viseme reconsidered: Evidence from production and perception.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have demonstrated that the labial stops /p,b,m/ may be impossible to discriminate visually, leading to their designation as a single viseme. This perceptual limitation has engendered the belief that there are no visible differences in the production of /p,b,m/, with consequences for research in machine recognition, where production differences below the level of the viseme have been largely ignored. Kinematic studies using high-speed cine, however, have previously documented systematic differences in the production of labial consonants. This study examines the degree to which visual /p,b,m/ are discriminable in production and perception. Two experiments—one designed to measure kinematic orofacial movement using optical flow analysis and one designed to test perceiver discrimination of /p,b,m/—were used to establish the absence/presence of systematic visual differences in bilabial productions, and to replicate the previous perception findings. Results from the optical flow analysis indicate systematic kinematic differences for the peak velocity of the lower face, which corresponds to the release of the bilabial consonant. Significant differences were found in velocity between /m/ and /b/, and between /p/ and /b/, but not between /p/ and /m/. Preliminary results from the perception task suggest discrimination of bilabial consonants is at chance level.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".